Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Glen LeBarr Applicant
-and-
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price Date: December 5, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2288 Indexed as: LeBarr v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
1This is an Application under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that, in deciding to deny the applicant’s entitlement to certain benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sch. A (“WSIA”), the respondent discriminated against him because of disability with respect to services, goods, and facilities. In his Application, the applicant acknowledges that the facts of the Application are part of another legal proceeding that is still in progress, namely an appeal under the WSIA.
2In its Response to the Application, the respondent asks that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that it does not raise issues that are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide. In the alternative, the respondent requests that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of the applicant’s appeal under the WSIA (“the Request to Defer”).
3On October 15, 2012, the Tribunal sent the applicant a copy of the respondent’s Response and Notice of the Request to Defer the Application pending the resolution of the WSIA appeal. The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the Request to Defer by October 29, 2012, failing which the Tribunal would determine the Request on the basis of the material presently before it.
4The applicant has not responded to the Notice of Request to Defer and the time for doing so has now elapsed.
5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an application seeks to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.
6In light of the overlap between the issues in the Application and the issues in the applicant’s WSIA appeal, I find that deferral of the Application is appropriate. The respondent’s jurisdictional objection will be addressed if and when the Application is brought back on before the Tribunal.
7In this regard, the parties’ attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which address how an Application that has been deferred may be brought back on before the Tribunal, following the completion of another legal proceeding. The Rules of Procedure are available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca.
8I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto this 5th day of December, 2012.
”signed by”
Sheri D. Price Vice-chair